[gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Hanno Böck]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 554 bytes --]

Before this discussion sleeps, what should be the conclusion?
For now, the situation in the tree is :
- java-stuff uses browserplugin
- acroread uses noplugin
- helixplayer/realplayer/vlc/gxine/djvu use nsplugin
That's not good!

As most people voted for nsplugin, I suggest the following:

- Change all ebuilds that have optional browserplugins to use nsplugin.

- Add nsplugin as a global use.flag.

If nobody crys "NO!", I'll add the global use-flag in a few days and open bugs 
against all packages not using nsplugin.

cu,

Hanno

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[dju`]

Hanno Böck wrote:
> Before this discussion sleeps, what should be the conclusion?
> For now, the situation in the tree is :
> - java-stuff uses browserplugin
> - acroread uses noplugin
> - helixplayer/realplayer/vlc/gxine/djvu use nsplugin

Probably a silly question, but why choose nsplugin over browserplugin? 
Aren't there any package that might provide plugins for 
non-netscape-based browsers?
-- 
Julien Allanos (dju`)
Gentoo Linux Developer (web-apps)
GnuPG key: 0x1EC6C6C2
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 22:52 +0200, dju` wrote:
> Hanno Böck wrote:
> > Before this discussion sleeps, what should be the conclusion?
> > For now, the situation in the tree is :
> > - java-stuff uses browserplugin
> > - acroread uses noplugin
> > - helixplayer/realplayer/vlc/gxine/djvu use nsplugin
> 
> Probably a silly question, but why choose nsplugin over browserplugin? 
> Aren't there any package that might provide plugins for 
> non-netscape-based browsers?

Actually, I think it is plugin-compatible with netscape, not necessarily
netscape-based.  For example, Konquerer can use the same plugins.  At
any rate, it is probably best to think about this now, hence using
nsplugin, rather than later, when whiz-bang $browser comes out that has
its own plugin interface.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 769 bytes --]

On Monday 17 October 2005 23:14, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Actually, I think it is plugin-compatible with netscape, not necessarily
> netscape-based.  For example, Konquerer can use the same plugins.  At
> any rate, it is probably best to think about this now, hence using
> nsplugin, rather than later, when whiz-bang $browser comes out that has
> its own plugin interface.
I quote entirely what Chris said... also, Konqueror uses KParts as plugins, 
nsplugins are an "extra", so yeah we have at least two plugins interfaces 
already present. The fact that KParts are more than plugins for konqueror is 
another point ;)

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 22:52 +0200, dju` wrote:
> > Probably a silly question, but why choose nsplugin over
> > browserplugin? 

This may not be a particularly _good_ reason, but "nsplugin" is already
an accepted global USE flag.

> At any rate, it is probably best to think about this now, hence using
> nsplugin, rather than later, when whiz-bang $browser comes out that
> has its own plugin interface.

Yeah! What if lynx starts using plugins?

-- 
Each night Father fills me with dread
When he sits on the foot of my bed.
        I'd not mind that he speaks; In gibbers and squeaks,
But for the seventeen years he's been dead.  --  Edward Gorey

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 610 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:52:05PM +0200, dju` wrote:
> Probably a silly question, but why choose nsplugin over browserplugin? 
> Aren't there any package that might provide plugins for 
> non-netscape-based browsers?

Yes, that's the exact reason for chosing nsplugin over browserplugin:
the latter is too general and doesn't allow the user to say "I want to
enable netscape-compatible brower plug-ins, but not browser $foo
plug-ins."

I'm all for the browserplugin => nsplugin change.

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 654 bytes --]

Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the 
USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change.  During 
the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing 
USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.

http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html

Unfortunately the discussion stagnated and the Java team went ahead 
with their original suggestion.

At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these 
ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from 
use.local.desc.  Comments?

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 459 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 14:50 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these 
> ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from 
> use.local.desc.  Comments?

Agreed 100%.  USE=mozilla shouldn't be used for plugins when we already
have a perfectly good USE flag for it.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 373 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:[Mon Oct 17 2005, 03:21:35PM EDT]
> Agreed 100%.  USE=mozilla shouldn't be used for plugins when we already
> have a perfectly good USE flag for it.

Thanks, but that's not the point.  The point is to switch them from
using the local USE=browserplugin to using the existing global
USE=nsplugin

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Stefan Schweizer]

On 10/17/05, Aron Griffis <agriffis@gentoo.org> wrote:
> At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these
> ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from
> use.local.desc.  Comments?

Thank you for proposing it. Will solve the current confusion.
Please go ahead and do it.

- Stefan

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1130 bytes --]

Aron Griffis wrote:
> Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the 
> USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change.  During 
> the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing 
> USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html
> 
> Unfortunately the discussion stagnated and the Java team went ahead 
> with their original suggestion.
> 
> At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these 
> ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from 
> use.local.desc.  Comments?

Well I have no problem with changing it again, but our user base might
get a little tired. At least we should put a lot of information out
about the change before going forward with it. We currently still have
the mozilla use flags in the ebuilds and I would not like to see three
different use flags for browser plugins in the ebuilds. Something like a
USE flag move would be a nice feature for portage (to update
/etc/portage/package.use).

Regards,
Petteri Räty (Betelgeuse)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Thomas Matthijs]

* Aron Griffis (agriffis@gentoo.org) wrote:
> Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the 
> USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change.  During 
> the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing 
> USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html
> 
> Unfortunately the discussion stagnated and the Java team went ahead 
> with their original suggestion.
> 
> At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these 
> ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from 
> use.local.desc.  Comments?

We had discussed it prior and then nobody seemed to object to
browserplugin, only after we changed it.

You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.

-- 
 Thomas Matthijs (axxo, knu) 

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 954 bytes --]

Thomas Matthijs wrote:	[Tue Oct 18 2005, 10:46:15AM EDT]
> We had discussed it prior and then nobody seemed to object to
> browserplugin, only after we changed it.

Actually that's not true.

http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html

You see that karltk said he would be making the change to
browserplugin "over the course of the next few days".  Diego responded
in the same day regarding nsplugins.  I sent a message that day and
the following day, but there was no response from karltk or the java
team.

http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02896.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02911.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02925.html

> You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
> Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.

Will do, thanks.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1287 bytes --]

Thomas Matthijs wrote:
> * Aron Griffis (agriffis@gentoo.org) wrote:
> 
>>Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the 
>>USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change.  During 
>>the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing 
>>USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
>>
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html
>>
>>Unfortunately the discussion stagnated and the Java team went ahead 
>>with their original suggestion.
>>
>>At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these 
>>ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from 
>>use.local.desc.  Comments?
> 
> 
> We had discussed it prior and then nobody seemed to object to
> browserplugin, only after we changed it.
> 
> You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
> Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.
> 

I discussed a possible solution to the problem with axxo the other day.
Basically we should remove all the use flags and make java-config able
to configure the java plugin.

In the meanwhile feel free to rename the USE flags, but you can of
course help the java team by improving =java-config-2.0* and adding
support for plugin configuring.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 321 bytes --]

Thomas Matthijs wrote:	[Tue Oct 18 2005, 10:46:15AM EDT]
> You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
> Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.

All set.  The only place browserplugin is mentioned is in the
ChangeLogs.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

Aron Griffis wrote:
> Thomas Matthijs wrote:	[Tue Oct 18 2005, 10:46:15AM EDT]
> 
>>You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
>>Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.
> 
> 
> All set.  The only place browserplugin is mentioned is in the
> ChangeLogs.
> 

Maybe there should also be a mention in gwn next week and the change
would then be committed on for example next tuesday.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

Petteri Räty wrote:	[Tue Oct 18 2005, 03:39:04PM EDT]
> Maybe there should also be a mention in gwn next week and the change
> would then be committed on for example next tuesday.

It's already done.  The ebuilds still honor USE=browserplugin but they
give a warning.  Also the flag is marked as deprecated in
use.local.desc

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]